This is the 200th birthday of the first Republican to win a national election, Abraham Lincoln. It is good for Republicans today to remember Lincoln, not to be antiquarians, but to learn from his principled defense of the Constitution.

By becoming students of Lincoln, Republicans can win elections and would deserve to win by helping America recover its constitutional source of strength and vitality.

The greatest political crisis America faces today is neither the recession nor Islamic terrorism; it's not health care, education, immigration or abortion. It is that the United States Constitution has become largely irrelevant to our politics and policies.

All three branches of government routinely ignore or twist the meaning of the Constitution, while many of our problems today are symptoms of policies that have no constitutional foundation.

If we are to recover the authority of the Constitution and the many ways it restrains and channels government power, someone or some party must offer a principled defense of the cause of constitutional government.

They must understand not only the Constitution, but also the principles that informed its original purposes and aspirations, principles found in the Declaration of Independence among other places.

“If the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers” were “restored” then there will be no truer supporters of that union and that Constitution than the Southern people. Every brave people who considered their rights attacked and their Constitutional liberties invaded, would have done as we did. Our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion, for our construction of the Constitution under which we lived and acted was the same from its adoption and for eighty years we have been taught and educated by the founders of the Republic and their written declaration which controlled our consciences and actions.”

Unfortunately the Republicans have almost entirely abandoned the principles under discussion.

Yeah,, but they stand up so well as a minority party when the chips are down and act like dems when they gain some power back. I think that's some kind of collective psychosis....or a sucker play on the rest of us.

No President was more consistent in ignoring the U S Constitution than Abraham Lincoln. It still amazes me when he is referred to as someone who obeyed it while he closed newspapers and jailed judges, for example.

“Yeah,, but they stand up so well as a minority party when the chips are down and act like dems when they gain some power back. I think that’s some kind of collective psychosis....or a sucker play on the rest of us.”

Our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion...

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." - Robert Lee

Lee was either blowing smoke before the rebellion or after it. I'm betting after.

What would the mitigation be then for said States and entities violating the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10.No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Also, Article 1, Section 9. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Lee and the south were just poor losers. They lost an election, and so decided to leave the Union. Then they began attacking US installations in the south.

Whether they were entitled to leave the Union at will is debatable. But I don't believe there was any cause to complain that they were forced to leave by reason of a Constitutional violation. They just didn't like being outvoted, and they knew that if the west came in as free states, they would lose the balance that allowed them to retain slavery. They had to leave, or give up their way of life. So they left.

Our situation today is different. Our constitution is being ignored. Those who want to live under the rule of law have to find a way to restore the constitution, or live under the tyranny of those who believe that they are not bound by its terms.

Only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, not a President acting on his own. You need to read your Constitution again.

A state in the Union could not enter into treaties or confederations that would bind the Union. The southern states left the Union. Where in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot leave the Union?

Only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, not a President acting on his own. You need to read your Constitution again.

The Constitution says when habeas corpus can be suspended. It doesn't say who can suspend it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot leave the Union?

James Madison wrote, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right? If not, why not?

Lincoln was a great man, and a great president - but attributing the defense of the constitution his way is just ridiculous. He was faced with a real constitutional crises when half the country decided to break away, and in holding the U.S. together was forced to abrogate said document more than any other president before or since.

This article as about as much nonsense as the flurry of recent articles from the left comparing Zero to Lincoln on the grounds of how ‘unifying’ they both are (hint: during his day, Lincoln was the most hated president ever).

20
posted on 02/11/2009 7:01:59 PM PST
by eclecticEel
(Wall Street isn't a charity ... so why are we giving them money?)

It does not grant nor deny states individually the right to succeed, however, it plainly states that states can’t go into confederation with each other. A declaration of war was not initially issued because the Federal government’s position was not to recognize said States as an autonomous nation in that their confederation violated the US Constitution. In such a case, it is questionable if the President does have the power as Commander in Chief, thus it is up for debate.. Neither sides where purists to the Constitution and can claim a high ground just based on those couple of items.

It is something we have the luxury of looking back at over one hundred years later and analyzing, at the time, decisions had to be made, real bullets where flying and the country was breaking apart. It makes the complaints people have today look like a trip to McDonald’s in comparison.

I'd call this historian a revisionist except that his tripe is the orthodox version of events. My advice to those who lionize Lincoln as Krannawitter does---or who haven't read about Lincoln since high school---is to study the history of what actually happened.

Dodging the issue of secession as treason (it is not), Lincoln's prevention of the meeting of the Maryland state legislature, political imprisonments in New York, the deportation of his critic Clement Vallandigham, operation of the Union army as the tool of plunder in Georgia and shutting down opposition press, this man was no Constitutionalist.

His objective was to institute Henry Clay's "American System" of central banking, protectionist tariffs and "internal improvement" boondoggles. Tariffs would have been constitutional except that they weren't uniform. Central banking and internal improvements are distinctly unconstitutional.

In short, President Lincoln defended the Constitution the way Colonel Sanders defended chicken.

You are aware that Vallandigham's stay in the confederacy lasted only as long as it took them to put him on a blockade runner and ship his sorry ass out of the country. I guess nobody wanted the schmuck.

It does no good to hold Lincoln up as a defender or a destroyer of the Constitution. He did what he thought was right, just as Davis, Lee, et. al did what they thought was right. That’s done.

Our circumstances today differ in that nobody is interested in what the Constitution says or does not say. Judges and politicians take the Constitution to mean what they say it means. And even THAT is subject to change.

Having said that the past is over and done with, I sincerely believe that our government has grown beyond its capacity to function in any coherent way. There are three possible outcomes:
1. Keep on going the way we are going, with all our irreconcilable differences;
2. Allow a peaceful and equitable divorce; or
3. Start shooting at each other.

Option #1 is impossible and impractical. The time is rapidly disappearing for Option #2. No sane person wants Option #3. What’s it going to be?

29
posted on 02/11/2009 7:23:07 PM PST
by NTHockey
(Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)

The most serious issues for American conservatism today are naturally assumed to be the social policies, political tactics, and outright anti-Americanism of the Left. This would be the case if conservatives were not so confused  and if some of the loudest voices on the Right were not so misleading  over what it is that we are supposed to conserve. Take away the universal objection to liberals, and popular conservatism in America becomes a perplexing scene. This confusion is most apparent when attention is given to the thought, the character, and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

The first big-government liberal; conscious abuser of the executive power for tyrannical ends; contributor to the culturally destructive tendencies of radical egalitarianism; sufferer of an assortment of psychological complexes; and, of course, a racist  these are favorite tunes played over and over again by scholars and journalists who claim to be taking a new, original, or "real" look at Lincoln. Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College, has done just that in his recent book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

Ken Masugi, Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Local Government, has reviewed The Real Lincoln in the October 14, 2002 issue of National Review. Aside from DiLorenzo's poor attempt at historical scholarship, Masugi reminds us how gravely mistaken some conservatives are in declaring Lincoln the enemy when he taught the only true standard available in objecting to the forces of modern liberalism  the Declaration of Independence."

Well there was his trampling of states rights through conscription and the forced extension of enlistments for the duration of the war. There was the confederate income tax, and the almost confiscatory tax rates that Davis tried to enact. There were the political prisoners, on a per capita basis one was more likely to be locked up in a Jeff Davis confederacy than Abe Lincoln's U.S. There was the forced impressment of slave labor without compensation 'for the war effort'. There was the seizure of a percentage of all agricultural output without compensation 'for the war effort'. Davis forced private ship owners to reserve a large percentage of their cargo space for government goods without compensation 'for the war effort'. The was the nationalization of industries like salt, liquor, and textiles. Then there was ignoring constitutional prohibitions against protective tariffs and requirements for a supreme court. Have any defense for any of those?

The Constitution needs to be replaced. We need one that can withstand more than 150 years of battle with tyrants. The one we have, as Lysander Spooner put it, "either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

Individual liberty requires better. You could say that the Constitution didn't fail us, that we failed it. But mankind will always have that corruptible bent. We need a Constitution with a "tamper-proof" lid.

I believe in all the grand principles in the Constitution, but they are fading quickly.

Some day, probably in a different country or on a different planet, some one will get it right. Until then, we will scurry around trying to protect ourselves with the deteriorating remains of our current constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen, er, weve just lost the picture, but, uh, what weve seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over  conquered, if you will  by a master race of giant space ants. Its difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. Id like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

You should work on your knowledge of popular culture and your comprehension abilities, especially with respect to the recognition of sarcasm.

His objective was to institute Henry Clay's "American System" of central banking, protectionist tariffs and "internal improvement" boondoggles. Tariffs would have been constitutional except that they weren't uniform. Central banking and internal improvements are distinctly unconstitutional.

The American System sure looks a lot better when the alternative was the Confederates' Assyrian System of slavery, oppression and ignorance. The best cure for dissatisfaction with Lincoln is to closely look at the other side.

“The American System sure looks a lot better when the alternative was the Confederates’ Assyrian System of slavery, oppression and ignorance. The best cure for dissatisfaction with Lincoln is to closely look at the other side.”

Hey, Kangaroo, stop hoppin’ boy...

96 percent of the soldiers who fought for the South owned no slaves and were poor Kangaroo...jump...jump...fast...

The one that defends State Rights And Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan Conservatism...

I worked for Ronald Reagan's administration, and met Barry Goldwater when I was working in the Senate. You're version of conservatism is not theirs. Yours is the conservatism of Randy Weaver and George Wallace and Orval Faubus. A reverence of the South, a loathing of Lincoln, and an excessive willingness to overlook the ugly reasons why the South wanted to secede, are all red flags to me of someone who has issues that are outside of a reasoned conservative philosophy.

I guarantee you that Reagan revered Lincoln, and with good reason. He was a great man, whose held this nation together and allowed it to become great, instead of letting it fall apart after only 87 years and become a balkanized, impoverished, immoral failure that would have shamed our founding fathers and been immersed in hostilities for centuries to come. We'd still be fighting over North America, only there would probably be 3 or 4 "nations" instead of 2, as the south and the west would likely have split apart over some issue at some point.

The easy choice would have been to let the south go its own way. What Lincoln did was hard, and it took a great toll on him. Had he not decided to fight to maintain the Union, our nation, our people, would be a diminished people, not the light of the world and last best hope of mankind.

Continue in your fantasy world, it's easy to sit there in your pajamas complaining about the civil war 150 years ago and enjoying the lap of luxury and using the technological advances that are all an outgrowth of American power and prowess that would not have developed without what Lincoln did.

96 percent of the soldiers who fought for the South owned no slaves and were poor

I wasn't talking about the reb soldiers particularly. I was thinking about the dummies who led the South into rebellion. I suspect 96% of them owned slaves, 99% of them were cheap crooked Democratic politicians and 100% of them were just plain stupid.

You are going to lose going forward after what I saw today with Maxine Walters, Jessie Jackson and other Congressmem advocating diveristy in lending practices continue.

People will wise up. Democrats have not changed from Jefferson Davis to Jesse Jackson. They get too greedy, they overreach for power and then the good people of the country finally wake up to their schemes.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.